Thread: Squaring the circle

preface: I don't do math. I sometimes look up things in math and physics, and find things of interest. So, in the case of 'squaring the circle', I had a non-mathematical idea about solving this, in part because it has a 'physical' element: "in a finite number of steps, using a compass and straight edge".

I am assuming both tools are marked with increments/there are some ways to determine length along the straight edge, and radius of compass arm separation.

Given the following figure:

Aren't the cardinal directions and the corners of the circle relative to concentric circles within and outside of the first circle?

Or, another way: aren't the intersections of the square and circle plottable along the diameter?

Squaring the circle is impossible...

Squaring the circle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Prove It

Squaring the circle is impossible...

Squaring the circle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You might notice the figure I included was an altered version of the one at that page. In fact, that page is where I first encountered the concept. Can you address the ideas I suggested above?

Originally Posted by ACultureMind

I am assuming both tools are marked with increments/there are some ways to determine length along the straight edge, and radius of compass arm separation.

No further comment need be made. In Euclidean proofs neither the straightedge nor the compass have markings on them. In fact it is assumed that the compass closes when taken away from the paper. So you can't measure off equal intervals or angles without using a construction.

-Dan

Originally Posted by topsquark

No further comment need be made. In Euclidean proofs neither the straightedge nor the compass have markings on them. In fact it is assumed that the compass closes when taken away from the paper. So you can't measure off equal intervals or angles without using a construction.

-Dan

That seems non-sensical, given the concern is each figure having the same surface area.

Originally Posted by ACultureMind

That seems non-sensical, given the concern is each figure having the same surface area.

Sorry, those are the rules. See Compass and straightedge constructions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by theodds

Sorry, those are the rules. See Compass and straightedge constructions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, none of that is really making any sense. It needs to be framed in an holistic/top-down manner for me to get it.

I need to know why something is, else it looks like a bunch of assertions I'm supposed to swallow like 'religion'.

I think there is sufficient information for the OP to follow up on. This thread is closed.